Dismissed

Kartikeswar Panda v. Mahanadi Coalfields

Orissa HC25 Apr 2024WA/289/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants challenged the Single Judge's order dismissing their writ petition for non-selection as a Dumper Operator trainee. The court held that driving experience accumulated before age twenty under the Motor Vehicles Act was legally invalid, upholding the Single Judge's refusal to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The intra-Court appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order dated 16.07.2014 dismissing the writ petition was affirmed.

Kartikeswar Panda Vs Mahanadi Coalfields — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No.289 of 2014

¶3

Kartikeswar Panda and others

¶4

-versus- Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jharsuguda and others

¶5

…. Appellants Mr. A. Patnaik, Advocate

¶6

…. Respondents

¶7

Mr. N. C. Sahoo, Advocate for MCL

¶8

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

25.04.2024

Order No.

05. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

The appellants in the present intra-Court appeal have questioned the legality of an order dated 16.07.2014 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in OJC No.1317 of 2001, whereby their writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been dismissed.

¶14

The controversy in the present matter relates to selection for appointment to fill up the vacancies of the post of Dumper Operator (Trainee) for which the respondents had sent a requisition to the Employment Exchange. Clause(b) of the said requisition laid down the following qualification for the post:

¶15

“(b) Qualification Required:-

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

(i) Minimum Class-VIII passed, but Matriculate/School Final passed OR above will be preferred. He should have a valid Heavy Vehicle Driving Licence acquired in 1988 or before. (ii) Minimum three years actual driving experience “OFF THE HIGH WAY” rear Dumper/Coal Haulers of the hauling capacity of 35 (Short Ton) OR above. He should also possess adequate knowledge of mechanism of the equipment and should preferably undertake minor running repairs. He should be acquainted with safety measures to be taken while operating the equipment.

¶18

(iii) Good physique and normal eyesight.”

¶19

The appellants-petitioners claim that they had driving experience of highway rear duper/coal Haulers of the hauling capacity of 35. In the writ proceedings, they had asserted that they fully complied with the qualification criteria mentioned in the requisition sent to the Employment Exchange. It was their case that their names were sponsored by the District Employment Exchange to the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (‘MCL’ in short) for their engagement to the post of Dozar/Dumper Operators and accordingly they were asked to appear for interview on the stipulated dates. Some of the persons, who appeared for the interview, were appointed but the appellants were not issued any order of appointment. Since the representations made to the MCL did not yield any result, they approached the District Employment Exchange Officer, who made a communication to the MCL seeking a detailed report. The MCL communicated to the appellants on 28.09.2000 disclosing the reasons for non-selection. It was mentioned in the said

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

communication that they lacked three years of experience as required. Challenging the said communication dated 28.09.2000, the appellants filed the aforesaid writ petition i.e. OJC No.1317 of 2001. In the writ proceedings, it was the specific case of the respondents that the appellants had not acquired three years of experience after attaining the age of twenty years, which is the minimum age for driving a transport vehicle in any public place under Section 4(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ in short).

¶22

The learned Single Judge after, having noticed Section 4(2) of the M.V. Act has held that persons having three years of experience of driving a transport vehicle, after attaining age of 20 years only could be eligible for appointment in terms of the qualification required for appointment to the post of Dumper Operator (Trainee).

¶23

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently argued that the appellants did have the experience of working as Dozer Operator for different periods of more than three years, the details of which have been given in paragraph-4 of the memo of appeal. He submits that the District Employment Exchange, after having satisfied itself about the appellants that they fulfilled the eligibility conditions, had recommended their names to the MCL. He has argued that the qualification prescribed by the MCL did not stipulate that experience of driving Dumper/Coal Haulers should have been acquired after twenty years, and therefore, the rejection of their candidature on the said ground is untenable. He has also

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

submitted that the posts are lying vacant and though the appellants are approximately 55 years of age as on date, their cases may be directed to be considered against those vacancies.

¶26

We do not find any merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants after having examined the provisions made under Section 4(2) of the MV Act, which read as follows:

¶27

“ 4. Age limit in connection with driving of motor vehicles. - (1) No person under the age of eighteen years shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place:

¶28

Provided that [a motor cycle with engine capacity not exceeding 50cc] may be driven in a public place by a person after attaining the age of sixteen years.

¶29

(2)Subject to the provisions of section 18, no person under the age of twenty years shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place.

¶30

(3)No learner’s licence or driving licence shall be issued to any person to drive a vehicle of the class to which he has made an application unless he is eligible to drive that class of vehicle under this section.”

¶31

Emphasis added

¶32

The law thus prohibits a person under the age of twenty years to drive a transport vehicle in any public place. It is true that Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the MV Act is subject to provisions of Section 18 of the MV Act, which authorizes a Competent Authority to issue driving licence to persons, who have completed eighteen years to drive motor

¶33

Page 4 of 5

¶34

vehicles, which are the property or for the time being under the exclusive control of the Central Government and are used for Government purposes relating to defence of the Country and unconnected with any commercial enterprise. Sub-Section (3) of Section 18 of the MV Act however categorically mentions that a driving licence issued under Section 18 of the MV Act shall not entitle the holder to drive any motor vehicle except a motor vehicle referred to in SubSection (1).

¶35

As a natural corollary thus, in terms of the qualification as laid down in the requisition made to the Employment Exchange, experience said to have been gained by a person of driving heavy vehicle contrary to the provisions of the MV Act cannot be treated to be a legally acceptable experience. We do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order.

¶36

In the facts and circumstances as noted above, we decline to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in an intra-Court appeal.

¶37

This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶38

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)

¶39

Chief Justice

¶40

(M. S. Raman) Judge

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Digitally Signed Signed by: MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Apr-2024 17:19:24

¶43

M. Panda

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Kartikeswar Panda v. Mahanadi Coalfields

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartikeswar Panda v. Mahanadi Coalfields

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yedla Siva Kumar Vs State of Odisha

Narendra Ku Nayak Vs P.O.,Labour Court

Harapriya Nanda Vs State of Odisha

Janaki Ray Bagel Babu Vs Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak, I.A.S.

Sarat Chandra Mohapatra Vs Collector Cum D.M. Cuttack

Niranjan Rout Vs Anu Gargh, I.A.S.